Readers' comments

"...the psychological (women are more risk-averse, less competitive and less likely than men to believe that they are qualified).."
Note that a good proportion of the left (esp. the female left), is unwilling to acknowledge gender-based psychological differences (at least as innate/inherent tendencies vs. "socially constructed" ones) in the first place.
I'm a psych major, despite all the (mainly conservative) protests against social sciences as being overly political(ly correct) or left-influenced, the vast majority of women in my major--if not every one I've had a class and/or personal interaction with--at least at the school I go to (which is in a NY system, no less)* readily acknowledge these things to the extent that "the evidence" does. It also seems that the ones that go more the "gender studies" (or sociology in general) route, get dispassionate/disillusioned with psychology anyway.
A lot of women also in the bio/health sciences degree programs (clinical psych. now, nationally, is approx. <20% male, and is increasingly biologically-oriented) who from their perspective, would appear to be ludicrous to outright deny very obvious (probabilistic) tendencies.
Talk about education being important....
There was also a recent study that actually measured "masculinity" vs. "femininity" quantitatively (as collections of traits), and found that in order from "most masculine" to "most feminine" political identity, you get libertarians-->conservatives-->liberals. (whether they measured party affiliations, or just individual beliefs, I'm unsure.)
Point is, just that piece of it alone is alienating/divisive/what-have-you--as I'd assume a great number of (if not an overwhelming majority of) women who are consistently loyal to Democrats, won't even consider it even MAYBE possible that psychological tendencies may in fact be the very reason for their voting patterns. (The fact this is by now such a touchy subject; and one laden with a disregard for statistics and probability theory; and willful ignorance of logical fallacies in order to deny basic evidence-based information--is also all rather ironic...)
Women who attain, more-or-less, equality in social status with men (i.e., equality in outcome) are the ones who are highly meritocratic (based on observation)--essentially the opposite of the stated tendencies (risk-averse, less competitive, don't think they're qualified so don't push as hard...) Democrats tend to focus more on treating people fairly and "giving" (?) them more opportunities, rather than "pushing" people to "achievement"--that's more of a Republican thing (and by "thing", by now I mean "rhetorical device", as it's rarely examined/spoken of past just saying they believe in/encourage it...)--so (again, ironically) that's where the appeal is for women (I'd assume, obviously this is an informed assumption though, given the tendencies mentioned in the article.) Not to mention how, if you think about it, going in opposition of male "tendencies" is also where men are more socially respectable/respected for their role in an admirable position of leadership (e.g., the ones who don't have affairs, gambling addictions, corrupt business practices, intellectual dishonesty, dishonesty in general esp. to get ahead financially...etc..)
So that stuff ( ^ ) would be a nice starting point....
*depends which "system" we're talking about, though: some are largely more politicized than others....

When the slogan, "Equality of opportunity, not outcome" fell out of favor with the Republicans, it became obvious that a substantial portion of their base (marginally educated white males) was determined to perpuate unearned advantage. The embrace of misogynistic demagoguery by many of the primary contenders and those ruled by fear and loathing are why the Republicans are losing any chance of support by Independents. The spineless behaviour by Mitt Romney demonstrates that he lacks the moral courage to be President.

I understand the value of pushing buttons in editorials, but this week's Lexington steps way over the line with the tag line, "If you can't take the heat, you stay in the kitchen." The sentiment that women are to blame for the GOP's misogynistic rhetoric because they do not hold office in equal proportion to men is appallingly dismissive of the exogenous factors which themselves PREVENT women from holding office. It seems that blaming the wronged for the injustices afflicting them is yet another method of suppression, and I am extraordinarily disappointed in the Economist's judgment in the face of otherwise excellent journalism.

I don't think the comment is particularly clever at all, but a hold-over from discussions regarding organizational "re-engineering" (to use an older term).

To wit, if organizational changes are too strong, or done incorrectly, the "organizational anti-bodies" come out, and the push back can be severe. So, it's a bit of an art form.

Regarding the quick response, I usually take some time in the morning with coffee and go over the TE blogs, and comment if the muse takes over, with my e-mail account open to see if there are any responses. And, then I move on to my real life. :)

I know this is OT, but does Lexington really have nothing to say about Obama's speech re the Supreme Court and the tiff between the Texas Fifth and the DOJ? I couldn't find anything in DiA, either. Am I the only one who cares?

This is an unfair statement: "In short, what women mainly lack is political ambition."

I'm disappointed in the tone of this post. Though, this isn't an American newspaper - this is a very "American" post. Let us please continue to generalize large swaths of the population into neat little boxes that only fit the sort of stereotypes that hurt these sort of conversations. Much like when speaking of the Hispanic population, people and journalists fail to realize that there are over 20 different countries that make up this population each with their own nuanced opions, cultures, and beliefs.

Yes, I will agree women have better things to do than be insulted for trying to affect change, but plenty of us do so. It will take many a generation, but I'm hopeful that these types of articles won't have to be written after a while. It's clear that when speaking of women there are some seriously horrible and internalized stereotypes in which we have to frame the discussions. For example, Katie Couric and Sarah Palin's media wars - seriously, would we call this a cat fight, and have we called it a cat fight when men take over other men's posts as hosts of TV shows? Yes, I'm sure part of this was a ploy to get ratings, but still - it matters how we go about this.

Personally, I'm over it. It's annoying that politicians only care about women, blacks, hispanics etc. when it is convenient to pander to them rather than doing their jobs and promoting their full consituency's interests.

Why are women suddenly responsible for the tendency of media to focus disproportionately on female politicians’ appearances and the societal norms which still dictate that childcare and homemaking are more the responsibility of a woman than a man?

Honestly, this is a bit silly. The column discusses the fact that women avoid politics because they know how they will be treated and viewed if they enter it, and that because of the unequal distribution of household labor (and the unequal perception of who should be doing that household labor; but the real problem is that they lack *political ambition*?

It seems to me that the real problem is the institutionalized sexism that makes the cost of being involved in politics higher for women than most sane people would be willing to pay (men, too, if the situation was reversed).

The Sandra Fluke situation is a perfect example. A woman offers testimony on an issue of concern to her (specifically, about a friend who needed birth control for non-contraceptive purposes)...which is usually a fairly low-profile bit of political participation, and she has her reputation and character slandered in the vilest possible ways for days on end in a very high-profile way.

That sort of thing would dissuade ANYONE from participation if they knew it was likely to fall on their heads just for daring to be involved, just for being the wrong gender.

There are female Republicans. There are minorities who vote Republican. (I am one.) Your ad hominem remark does not advance the debate. What it does, however, is show that the left exploits women and minorities for political gain.

Pointing out how high-profile Republicans have in recent years made disparaging comments regarding minorities and women to use as wedge issues, including references to food stamps, welfare, contraception, abortion rights, the Dream Act, the work ethic of minorities, etc.

Ethnic and racial minorities, and women, tend to vote for Democrats on average, and for a reason. Republicans have only themselves to blame.

Hi, Faedreus. Maybe to you it's a joke. But Obama and the Dems aren't joking when they make these accusations against Republicans. In effect, they are accusing me of being against women, minorities, bunny rabbits, shooting stars, and all things decent. I know I'm not what they say. The Republicans I know aren't what they say. So why single my group out for these trumped up charges? It's intolerant.

Aw, come on. If you're going to talk about "Obama and the Dems," you can hear about Republicans. To wit: Republicans are such thin-skinned whiners this conservative hates to be associated with them for fear his laughter will blast the withered soul.

What's intolerant is a very high profile Republican like Rush Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a slut and a prostitute because she felt that her health care insurance coverage should include contraceptives.

Or, another high profile Republican, Newt Gingrich, stating that minority kids should do physical labor in schools because they otherwise might not learn the work ethic.

These are just two well known examples, but if you listen to Fox, Rush, or any number of media right outlets, you'll hear what the rest of us hear, hence the impression that Republicans, and those who vote for them, are intolerant.

Some Republicans say stupid things. But so do Democrats. (How can they not? There are millions of people who identify as Republican or Democrat.) ... I used the word "tolerance" previously because I observed liberals ostensibly hold the concept in high regard. But really, I see, it's just a self-serving, selective tolerance - because if Republicans wanted to, using the left's reasoning, they could call Democrats racists, sexists, etc. They tend not to go there because they respect your intelligence.

My point is this. I welcome legitimate criticisms. They allow me to improve myself. What I don't welcome are the epithets and slogans ("racist", "war on women", etc) which dumb down the already intellectually disabled political debate. When it's specious, when someone is making a blanket statement about people who share my values, attributing to them motives that were never there - lying about them, essentially - to me that's not criticism. It's lying hypocrisy. So lay off the race card, class warfare, etc. It gets tedious, and it doesn't help.

Rush and Coulter have been saying for years that the real racists are Democrats, because they're the ones who started the Ku Klux Klan.

What they don't say, however, is that the South has gone Republican in recent years beginning with Nixon's Southern Strategy, created to appeal to disaffected whites after the implementation of legislation linked to the Great Society, which was implemented by LBJ, who was a Democrat.

Anyway, lets not lose sight of your original comment above, i.e., "...the left exploits women and minorities for political gain."

I can't vouch for the left, but we do know that the right exploits minorities by appealing to the fears of older, poorly-educated white folks. You might want to read "What's the Matter with Kansas?" for some background.

Or, watch "Fox and Friends" some morning, or listen to Rush for an afternoon, or watch a Gingrich stump speech.

Yeah, fair. But how often and from whom do you hear all Republicans branded "racist" or that they are fighting a "war on women?" You can't scold everyone who makes comments like that in submission, but you can safely ignore them. Most of us do, just as most of us know there is no important war on Christmas or pervasive bigotry against people of faith in this country. If you choose to have your dialogue with people who speak like that, then that's the dialogue you'll have. If you choose to have your dialogue with others then you'll have and contribute to a different dialogue.

There's about a million political dialogues happening in the United States right now. You're free to choose which to participate in.

Women may not make up 50% of Congress, but women shouldn't have to be equally represented in Congress in order to receive proper healthcare and proper access to services for domestic abuse and gender-based violence. Nor can female Congresswomen or Senators do much when they are excluded from discussions regarding women's health or violence against women.

Has anyone ever studied how what voters think in April of an election year correlates with what they think in November? Or are all the people who might study such a thing people like this writer, making their living with articles like this?